Theoretical Question regarding Germany 1944 and the H-bomb..

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

If you were the German High Command in 1944, and your scientists had told you they had this weapon of unbelieveable destructive power that could take out an entire city in an instant - would you have used it, and if so - which of the Allies would you have targeted, specifically which city, and why?

I got asked this question at work today you see, and we spent a good hour or so talking about it (it's better than doing anywork you see).

My chocie was Manchester, England. Because it's a large well populated city, and an effective demonstration. Given what Japan actually did the following year, Britain would probably have done the same. America would have signed a peace treaty imo, and Germany would have access to all those divisions of battle hardened British troops. Russia would have fallen and the face of the world would be totally different today.

What do you think?

[Gayle29uk]

Originally posted by Belgarath The Sorcerer
<snip>

Coventry. It would have been a devastating loss for England but would have left London habitable for the inevitable occupation. Manchester's a bit too far north for a reliable bombing run, remember you've only got one shot (or two at most) as neither fissile material nor the bombs themselves would be in great supply.

[JonnyBGood]

The troop concentrations in england prior to D-day, and in France before operation cobra. Plus you nuke London and claim to have more material. Nobody is stupid enough to try and force a genocidal maniac who just dropped nuclear weapons on a city to back down because you don't think he has enough material for another bomb.









PS Hear north korea withdrew from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty?

[Cochese]

Yes Jonny, they did.

[KaneED]

Any of the capitals.

If you take one out, the fact that you can get near enough the apparently most important city in a country and destroy would send a nasty message.

Ideally, it'd have been either Washington or New York in America simply because of their economic strength. If your goal is world domination and you destroy the economic centre of the world at the time, then the rest of the world essentially plunges into economic turmoil, leaving them poor, starved, ill-equipped and in generally bad condition, meaning you can easily dominate them when the time comes.

I don't think about these things.

:/

the cities/areas most relevant for weapon-production, this demoralisation-idea didnt work out that well as you could see at those cities you bombed

PS point of this thread?

[KaneED]

Originally posted by wu_trax

PS point of this thread?

PS. Read the opening post.

[Vermillion]

If I were German high command in 1944? Well firstly it kindof depends when in 1944... Actually, no it does not. Here are my three choices for targets of an A-bomb, including historical likelyhood, value to the war effort, and possibility of delivery.


1: Moscow.

2: Moscow.

3: Moscow.


If Moscow were not available, then I would wait for a little while then his Moscow. Anything else is unrealistic, foolish or pointless.

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

Originally posted by wu_trax
cities you bombed

PS point of this thread?

It's friday night and I'm not going out, so I thought I'd ask a semi-interesting question and talk about the responses. It has a lot more point than most of the threads I close or delete everyday.

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

Originally posted by Vermillion
If I were German high command in 1944? Well firstly it kindof depends when in 1944... Actually, no it does not.

Early 1944 was what I was asked at work earlier. But your the history expert.

Also, why Moscow?

[pablissimo]

I like your Manchester first-strike idea. Though to be fair I'd have been nuking somewhere mildly more important, like London or Bala.

[Intervention]

He has a point with Moscow.

Relatively less defended and still proves a point to the world that you don't want to be f**ked with.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally posted by Belgarath The Sorcerer Also, why Moscow?

From the POV of the Germans, I'd imagine that even in 1944 the idea of killing x million slavs would be more appealing than killing x million Anglo-Saxons. And that's even ignoring the horrors of the costs of the war on the Eastern front.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Belgarath The Sorcerer
It's friday night and I'm not going out, so I thought I'd ask a semi-interesting question and talk about the responses. It has a lot more point than most of the threads I close or delete everyday.

hmm, thats a point.
ive been thinking about it again, and there is no point in using these weapons at all in 1944, because the game was already over by then

[GavGull]

I'd go for Moscow; worse defence, shows the world what you're capable of, ****s the centralised Bolshevik government up, isn't destroying a city that may prove useful in the future.

[insane_in_da_membrane]

One of the Capitals, most probably London. As a few people pointed out, you'll take out the government, the monarchy and a fair number of innocent people and armed forces showing that you aren't to be ****ed with. either that, or an area with a really high concentration of enemy forces

[lokken]

Moscow, Southampton, or anywhere in Surrey.

[wakey]

Originally posted by Three_Eyes_Open
London Or perhaps Paris.

A major population centre to show the enemy that I was willing to slaughter his people with out remorse and to demoralise his troops.

Bunos: London = Goverment *and* Monarch. As well as some major Military command peoples.

Why Paris. They already had control of France so it wouldnt have acheived as much. A direct attack would be much more effective. Just Look at 9/11 while its spread panic around the globe the only people who took real notice of it were the americains. Places liek Britain are still lax in much of the secuity matters and will remain so until a direct attack

[Belgarath The Sorcerer]

Originally posted by wu_trax
and there is no point in using these weapons at all in 1944, because the game was already over by then

This is a 'what-if' scenario, in that if you were Germans in 1944, losing the war, IF you had had an A-bomb, would you have used and if so where.

[lokken]

Thinking about it seriously, I'd go for Portsmouth.

Wipe out a large chunk of the British navy, a large chunk of its dockyards, leaving Britain undefended at sea, plus take out a reasonably major city, causing mass panic.

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by Belgarath The Sorcerer
This is a 'what-if' scenario, in that if you were Germans in 1944, losing the war, IF you had had an A-bomb, would you have used and if so where.

yes, yes, i understand. i just changed my answer to "no, because the war was already lost by then and there was no big point in using such a weapon (unless you could produce large quantity of them) or in other words: 44 was too late

[LHC]

Germany kept fighting depsite the fact that the war was already lost though, so why wouldn't they produce it?

[Monkeypimp]

The artic circle.

ofc this would screw germany as well, but I'd see it as 'taking one for the team'

[wu_trax]

Originally posted by LHC
Germany kept fighting depsite the fact that the war was already lost though, so why wouldn't they produce it?

the question was what i would have done, wasnt it?

[LHC]

Originally posted by wu_trax
the question was what i would have done, wasnt it?

I suppose. But since you are the high command leader of the evil nasty Nazis you would be mucho evil, and would want to cause mass havoc and innocent deaths.

I am somewhat curious as to the psychological effect of the H-bomb. (well, I would be, woudn't I...)
Would any of you think that the power of such a weapon could have been demonstrated without the obliteration of an entire city? I fail to see why it couldn't...
Whereas the Japanese were not developing weaponary that came anywhere close to the destructive capacity of the H-bomb, it had little choice but to give up. Even if Germany had beaten America in the race towards nuclear capability, America would not have given up as easily as the Japanese, since they would have known that they too would soon have the same capability for mass destruction.
Japan's surrender was a combination of military and economic crippling (though the Japanese army still retained considerable manpower, there were neither the resources, nor the strategic territory, for Japan to effectively continue the war) and the fear of the H-bomb. From the most sympathetic viewpoint, the effect of the H-bomb as regard the strategy of the Pacific War was to hasten the inevitable.
Britain, in a totally different position, might have not reacted in a similar way, and since, from what I believe, Germany's aim as regards England was to keep it neutral, I would have thought that the Germans would not have taken such a risk as to stir the animosity of a still-strong and well-connected nation.
In this light, there seems to be two possible ways of using the H-bomb. One would be to demonstrate its devastation without causing casualties, simply awing Britain out of the war, without incurring her wrath. The other, to totally decimate Britain, in military, economic and cultural ways, leaving her with no power to fight back.

[Knight Theamion]

pre scriptum: lole had to re-reg (lol omfg)

anyway


i would've hit moscow and hope to have killed stalin. That would've made matters a lot easier on that front.

Second is london.

I would've also told the japs about it.

Originally posted by Knight Theamion
pre scriptum: lole had to re-reg (lol omfg)

You have no proof that this is the same Lole who was one of the first three (after MindyerBeak and oh damn what's his name the roleplayer) to reach 1000 posts.

[Knight Theamion]

Originally posted by Lole
You have no proof that this is the same Lole who was one of the first three (after MindyerBeak and oh damn what's his name the roleplayer) to reach 1000 posts.

cheesehead.

but this kinda confirms it.

no, definitely not him. I don't even seem to recall the name, perhaps I was fourth then.
the name was vaguely fake latin. Ended with 'us'

[Knight Theamion]

Originally posted by Lole
no, definitely not him. I don't even seem to recall the name, perhaps I was fourth then.
the name was vaguely fake latin. Ended with 'us'

Angelus

OOO and Happy Roid Hotel.

Ah yes, of course.
How could I forget.
Although I did find it somewhat distasteful sometimes, you know, the constant reference to flaming newbies... very macho, despite many of them bearing female names...

[Woof]

Milton Keynes, cos it's ****.

[QazokRouge5]

Londo. It would cripple Britain, and leave them in shambles. then I would have hit moscow, and demanded the Americans remove all forces from or grounds or face the same destruction.